roenxi

So forcing everyone to change their meeting place to a venue with a unisex bathroom only is not political, but a trans woman using a woman’s bathroom is political?

Nobody is calling for unisex bathrooms as far as I know, so it can't really be called a political choice. It is just practical - there isn't a consensus about who should get a special bathroom. How can there be a special bathroom if we don't know who is supposed to be using it?

Also, Helen still wants to be called Helen and still wants to be referred to as a she. By this logic, everyone must go by they/them? Or what?

I don't see how to get away from that one, there is a fundamental rift between the people who think individuals control their identity and the people who think that identity is constructed by someone's peers (see also, shaking off an unwelcome nickname).

But that is an inescapable problem that has dogged humanity since before we were a species so good luck excluding it from any space. If it flares up and diplomacy can't smooth it out then some organiser is just going to have to make a call.

That actually sounds like a relatively simple one to resolve although the practicality might be a bit poor. The nonpolitical resolution is to use a space with 1 small unisex bathroom and insist that everyone keep it clean. If there isn't a consensus on who gets a special bathroom then there shouldn't be one.

It would be more useful to say that communities should be organised around a set of principles and be ruthless about sticking to them.

The issue isn't so much that groups become "political" (which is a hard standard to define) as much as they lost focus on a goal (like being a book club) and morph into an in-group, an out-group and a set of memes used to identify the in-groupers and ostracise the out-groupers.

The point of most political memes is to identify a small group who are coordinating to try and control a larger mass of people. When the local book club becomes a conduit for them that is obviously toxic for a general member joining because of the joy of reading. A book club community should prioritise books and including people if and when they enjoy books.

I think it would be hard to make the label "ethnostate" stick to the US. It is too diverse.

As I follow the stats, somewhere between 20-40% of the US public seems to be open to the idea that Israel is a genocidal ethnostate. I have a low opinion of the US State on the best of days but it actually seems quite remarkable that they would be buying from them given where public opinion seems to be at. The US public is tolerant of a lot of things but the political cost-benefits surely can't make sense for that.

Open sourcing is a complex decision so who knows what their calculations are.

But I'd assume that they're preparing for some sort of winner-take-all market in model quality where if they don't do anything the winner will be aggressive, hostile and American. Likely trying to push the Chinese economy back to the year 2000. If that is the starting point either the Chinese have to win the market (unlikely) or squeeze the profit out of it to make winning the market meaningless.

Publishing high quality open models is a well known tactic for profit squeezing. Being 2nd place with the same business model as the front-runner is a losing strategy in a winner-take-all market so they aren't going to bother with that. But if they can commoditize the model, their superior energy costs and likely coming chip manufacturing wave will hopefully give them a big advantage.

That's how nearly everything works. If people don't think action is in their best interest they don't act. And you can substitute any country for China - although if anythign the Chinese have been unusually competent compared to everyone else. the US has been adopting a foreign policy with a deliberateness of action that could be likened to someone having a seizure.

I expect the Chinese will do something wildly stupid at some point, but they've been behaving quite responsibly so far.

I have no source for this but I feel like the environment thing is too frequently repeated (also without any evidence).

They're pumping out solar like mad and places like the Xinjiang deserts actually have nowhere to put their excess electricity from what I've read previously.

You've found a pretty compelling piece of evidence right there. There is a reason they're the ones pumping out solar like mad - because they have relatively lax environmental laws. If they had western-style environmental laws the panels would have to be manufactured in India or Africa or something.

Obviously it isn't the only criteria because I'm sure there are places with lower environmental requirements than China; but the big selling point for the last 20-odd years seems to have been more that you're allowed to manufacture there and they have a competent workforce rather than that the wages were amazingly low.

Yep. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/median-daily-per-capita-e... for example. Although note the log-log axis which undersells the gaps between countries.

I'm not really sure that China's labour costs can be described as "low" these days, going by GDP per capita [0] they're above the global average. They're a little lower than the Europe median I think but the gap probably isn't strategically important.

The Chinese edge tends to come from their environmental laws; they allow their industry to do things that the West would ban.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...

America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

The US consistently scores among the best countries in the world for paying people [0]. Is there some way I can lodge an application to be exploited in a similar manner, without having to move there? Being wealthy and having to live among really wealthy people sounds better than being poor and living among equals.

They're inventing a metric there that just doesn't matter.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

The CSIRO aren't the group who have to cost, pay for, take on the financial risk of or be operationally involved in running a nuclear power plant. Their opinions are welcome but not in any way final. The Chinese might easily be willing to come in and build something as their industry matures, for example, at costs not currently anticipated.

The more pressing issue is the Australian government is a coven of luddites who have taken a bold and consistent stance against any form of advanced industrial progress taking root in Australia whatever and have identified nuclear power as high technology that therefore must be categorically banned. Leaving the whole question an academic one and leaving the CSIRO the only group taking an interest.

We might suspect the hardware used for the LLM is very similar to a graphics card and so the wattage would be extremely similar to using a graphics card to display a game's graphics in the first place. Which puts a certain ironic perspective on tokarf's original comment.

but that isn't because they are reasoning better, it would because they included millions of Rubik's Cube states with next moves as text in the training data, I presume.

Isn't it far more likely that the LLM has memorised the well known algorithms for solving a Rubik's Cube and has become intelligent enough to execute them? That seems like it'd be a lot easier than memorising millions of cube states. It doesn't even seem obvious that it could memorise next moves, it seems [0] there are more possible states of the cube than these models have parameters. It'd need to be a Large Rubik's Cube Model (LRCM? LRM?) rather than an LLM.

[0] https://cube.alen.is/

Yeah but that is likely the normal state of things - high status people are human too, we're all shocked. And on Twitter comment - mass media has been a tool of propaganda since shortly after it was invented. Twitter is substantially better than something like a newspaper or TV channel.

The difference in the modern era is the internet is such a robust communication channel that the ultra-wealthy can't pay money to have the negative stories suppressed any more. If anything the current crop seem to be unusually well behaved by historical standards because there are so many eyes on them. Scandals like the whole Epstein thing or #metoo would simply have vanished into silence before the 2000s unless they were being used to lever out someone uncooperative for political purposes.

People can write what they like on their blog, but this article seems to be missing key details - we don't find out what the model is or the coefficients he's using and the model apparently immediately produces unrealistic results. Hopefully it is made clear in the book, but unless someone has read Abundance it is hard to follow.

If the model is just a rough rule of thumb then spot checking 4 cities in completely different legal frameworks, cultures and economic situations doesn't give us a lot of data. Economies are very complicated and any effect can be overruled by something unrelated but more impactful happening.

Then they don't need to tax you and you can just give the money to educational institutions. The argument for taxes is either "I don't think it is fair for me to pay for this alone since others are benefiting" or "this absolutely positively must be a group effort" (eg, the military).

"I want my taxes to..." is a generally a bad start, because the point of taxes is it doesn't matter what an individual taxpayers wants to happen to them. Most taxpayers want the taxes to not be spent the way they will be. That is why they are taxes. If people had an actual choice then in all likelihood they wouldn't pay them.

It isn't my pension, and if it was my pension the major issue would be that I was relying on people I think are untrustable with money to fund my retirement. That is one of those ideas so strategically bad that no tactical success or failure matters. I personally wouldn't choose to let more than a fraction of my money get pushed into that vortex. It looks like a disaster waiting to happen (hopefully I'm wrong and everyone goes home happy).

As a rule of thumb in life, if someone is managing your money then you should by and large agree with their judgement of the markets.

Those are 3 thresholds that a situation typically has to meet before people get upset about something. Arguably the 3rd one is not great, but the other two are just obvious and basic requirements. In this case even that last one is fine, the financial system is set up so that, in theory, other people losing money doing something stupid is a problem firewalled to just them.

Prices are set on the margins, the reason people are paid what they are is because even a relatively small change would cause someone to do something differently. Same theory as why we can be confident raising the price of something a few cents is likely to cause someone to change their decisions - if it wasn't, the seller would raise the price by a few cents.

It isn't obvious what a 10% across-the-market tax will do, but by the nature of prices they are always going to be set near tipping points so it probably is going to cause people to drop out of the workforce or reduce the amount of time they spend working. Maybe tip people into less productive jobs that pay cash. I dunno. How many people and how many hours is an open question but all your imagination is really telling you is that you don't deal with marginal participants in the workforce.

But it does imply at some level attempting to achieve them. At every stage of the war the US has taken (and continues to take) action that is more likely to close the strait than open it. To the point where people were pointing it out how this would game out years before the war actually happened.

It is possible that the US military is so incompetent that they can't plan or that Trump has lost touch with reality. But then their goals would just be incoherent and incomprehensible. Assuming they have coherent goals and some capacity to work towards them it is clear that an open strait is at best a very low priority one.

It is a bit surprising, I'd have guessed the same. Although in hindsight I could believe that type systems aren't particularly strong as an anti-bug layer. They help. They're a big boon for coordinating large numbers of mid- and low- skill programmers though because it forces them to go further in documenting their function signatures and makes it much more obvious where the problems are when refactoring spaghetti code because things break loudly.

Refactoring spaghetti has become easier in the LLM era because it can just read all the code, and there is now a skill floor on the programmers that kicks in somewhere relatively high. The benefits of type systems might have suffered because of that.

What is the alternative here other than acceptance exactly? It seems the options are either accept a toll or accept that the strait is closed.

The toll seems pretty reasonable. Trump doesn't look like he's actually going to compensate them for the sneak attack and all the bombing runs; they have to make the money up somehow as all that destruction looks expensive. And they need a source of funds ASAP to arm up before the US comes back.

If you're measuring it as "how many people own superyachts" that's probably different from how most people want to measure "how well is the planet being run".

A disturbing number of people are financially incapable to the point where they struggle with concepts like spending less money than they earn. There is a significant tension between what they want to measure and what economic optimal looks like. The economy is there to maximise peace and prosperity, the people who think otherwise should be kept well away from the levers of power.

Why? This seems like an odd statement. Why is a singer more efficient at doing this than a team of analysts?

I assume she's got a team of analysts working on it. I doubt she manages her own money directly. They're probably pretty good.

You think that

1. We should be pushing for more superyachts, as an immediate measure of efficient allocation of resources

I think that a world where one person has a superyacht is better than a world where nobody does. In much the same way that a world in the 60s someone probably owned a really expensive mainframe and there'd be people moaning about how outrageous it was that someone could spend so much money on a big calculator. The market doesn't seem to want to give everyone a superyacht, and I doubt it would be efficient to jump right in to it. For obvious reasons

Points 2 to 4 though seem like an accurate restatement. With the caveat that my knowledge of Swift is patchy and distant.

It can't be, because if that was the goal they'd just stop attacking. The strait was open until they sneak attacked Iran. Everyone seems to be in agreement that as part of a ceasefire the strait will open. Iran has shown no particular interest in closing the strait except as a war tactic. The US clearly does not have the power to control or open the strait militarily, its been months now. They appear to be outclassed.

If the goal was opening the strait, then Trump would direct the US military to stop attacking and then the strait would open up. Peace is the only path they have to open the strait and there is every reason to think negotiation would succeed in having the strait open in a matter of days.

By process of elimination, the war goal either seems to be some sort of relatively indirect attack on China's energy security or simple support of Israel in Lebanon by keeping the Iranians out of it. Or maybe Trump has also reached the tipping point into senility; a scenario which seems increasingly likely.

While I have no objection to long ranty posts - I write enough of them myself - as a matter of practicality I'm going to ignore most of it and stick to the questions to keep the walls of text under control.

You can look at that and say "this is optimal" but I am very unsure as to what you're then measuring.

Well, we started back in ~1,000AD with 0 people who own such a boat. Now in ~2,000AD we have >1 person with such a boat. Ideally we'd like to be as close as possible to a world where everyone has such a boat. So 1 person isn't ideal but, y'know it is a start and we're going to need to have 1 person before we get to 2. Probably it is about as good as we can manage right now. Bezos is a good candidate for the 1st person, he's done some pretty amazing things.

Why would anyone go hungry and uneducated if Taylor Swift is angry? What is the process by which you see that happening?

She might not donate the money. She's choosing to give money away because it won't impact her lifestyle, so if you take money from her on the theory that it doesn't impact her lifestyle maybe she stops. And she's probably more efficient in spending it than the practical alternatives.

Let's take TS as an example. What is it she is being rewarded for, is it efficient allocation of capital? Is that why people buy her songs? Is that what's made her so incredibly wealthy? Do you think that if she was rewarded somewhat less, that she'd stop making music? Stop touring? In fact, imagine she never got more money. Do you think she's making music because she's saving up for something she cannot currently afford? Does she have a lifestyle that's unsustainable without earning even more money?

Yes to all of the above. I assume. I don't know much about Taylor Swift except she's got a lot of money and she sings.

As in Quantitative Easing? I confess I don't understand it as well as I probably should, but I think it's cyclical? and inequality is increasing even when it is not happening?

QE, inflation policy and the fairly regular bailouts. And probably funnelling money away from markets and towards golf buddies through the government.

It's continuous [0]. The US money supply went from something like 16 trillion to 23 trillion since COVID. In percentages, that means nominal wages and expenses should probably have gone up by around 40% all else equal. Typically though, most of the gains are in asset prices first then flow into the broader market second - so I see things like US wages are up around 20% [1], so I'd expect asset prices to be up >40%. And people with political connections probably do better again.

What policies would you suggest to achieve that meaningfully (obviously inflation doesn't count)?

Me personally? I'd start by targeting stable prices before technological improvements (stable as in they tend not to change, not the weirdness where people are supposed to use 'stable' to describe exponential increases). Let badly run companies go bankrupt. Tax people directly instead of trying to pay for government policies through inflation. Then once a clearer picture emerges of where the real resources are coming from and going to, start talking about whether there is an actual problem to solve in real terms.

[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881500Q

I'm still a bit lost on what the point of difference is. You seem to be saying that you've seen evidence that makes this "strawman argument" convincing to you, but you don't seem to accept that I've generally argued with people who believe it. If you think there is evidence and it is convincing evidence then the obvious interpretation of what I said seems to be that I'm just being logical and straightforward. I don't see the strawman.

I mean I might not know what a strawman is, but I thought it was claiming people were making an argument that in fact they were not.

Would you say we had a free market in the 1970s, when the chart I linked showed the top .01% by wealth's share of taxes exceeded their share of wealth? That's essentially what I'd like to go back to, perhaps by a wealth tax. I would say we had a free market then, showing progressive taxation and free markets are absolutely compatible. This isn't Soviet-style central planning.

I mean, sure. I've long argued that the US strategy of printing money and giving it to asset owners is bad. I doubt a wealth tax would help, IMO the real issue is the welfare for wealthy people. Seems kinda dumb and the people claiming that the economy would collapse without it appear to be making up their principles as they go along. But we should all want to encourage wealth. It makes people wealthy.

If wealth getting concentrated is so good, why not only allow one person to have everything? See how odd that seems?

Isn't that fairly close to what we have now? I don't see any theoretical issues. Obviously if we literally mean one person I don't think the market would pick that as an optimum outcome, but there isn't an issue with the idea in principle.

Besides, the alternative is to have a relative small committee that, in practice, decides when to give and when to take away. That is the most practical aspect of wealth control and there is still a small number of people controlling it.

Sure. So we could ask, say, can we compare educating 500 children for 12 years vs Taylor Swifts net worth going from $2.1B to $2B? How much would she be hurt and how much would other benefit? What would be the impact if she was slightly less wealthy?

Worst case is she gets angry and a bunch of people go hungry and uneducated, she donates quite a lot of money. $26m going out some time soonish according to a recent heaadline. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2026/jul/02/taylor-swift-t.... She's more effective with that donation than getting outcomes like educating 500 kids. It turns out to be nontrivial coming up with good examples in practice.

Even your straw man version of this argument is pretty convincing to me...

Wouldn't that make it not a straw man argument? It isn't an argument as pointing out an assumption that voting or committee can be better at allocating resources than a free market. It isn't a very well grounded one and it looks wrong when presented on its own but there isn't much I can do about that. It is popular and people find it convincing.